CSP is literally in this release, and background workers are intentionally not part of Django because you usually want to offload tasks to other nodes so your CPU can keep serving HTTP requests.

Edit: Background tasks for light work are also included in this release.

My point was that these features that are considered new and exciting have been standard in Rails for many, many years. There are many _other_ features that Django still lacks!

I don't understand your point about the workers, since you argue it doesn't belong in Django, but then in your edit mention they have been added. To be clear I'm talking about a worker abstraction, not actually running the workers pods themselves.

You said "that Django still lacks". Django no longer lacks CSP and background tasks.

Regarding my edit, you need to differentiate between different types of jobs. Sending an email is okay to do in process. Other (mostly async) Python web frameworks have implemented this, so the Django team probably felt compelled to offer the same. Processing a user-uploaded file is much more expensive and shouldn't be done in the web process. If enough users upload files you're starving your workers for CPU.

This "memory shortage" is not about AI companies needing main memory (which you plug into mainboards), but manufacturers are shifting their production capacities to other types of memory that will go onto GPUs. That brings supply for other memory products down, increasing their market price.

It's actually in the name: R = Redundant, i.e. availability.

Just because it's in the name, doesn't mean it should be considered a fact or best practice in accordance with reality. I think this[0] reddit post frames it in the simplest way possible: "A backup is a copy of the information that is not attached to the system where the original information is."

There are many[1], many[2], many[3] articles about why "RAID is not a backup". If you google this phrase, many more people who are considerably more intelligent and wise than myself, can tell you why "RAID is not a backup" and it is a mantra that has saved myself, friends, colleagues and strangers alike a lot of pain.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/storage/comments/hflzkm/raid_is_not...

[1] https://www.raidisnotabackup.com/

[2] https://serverfault.com/questions/2888/why-is-raid-not-a-bac...

[3] https://www.diskinternals.com/raid-recovery/raid-is-not-back...

edit: formatting

The I used to stand for "inexpensive" too, until RAID drives turned out to be everything but. They've since made it a backronym as "independent", although the drives really aren't independent either.

I don't know about this exact metrics, but the Backblaze hard drive report is always a very good read when thinking about failure rates. Maybe check it out and see if you'll get your answers there.

But "outdated code" isn't inherently bad, is it? v1 code is still supported by the stdlib and it still does its job, at least until Go 2.x drops.

In fact, v1 code usually uses v2 code under the hood, but with different options to maintain backwards compatibility.

You still get performance improvements even if you don’t switch over to the new import!

A good example is io/ioutil. It's useful to migrate to eliminate the deprecation messages, but you don't need to do it right away.

Also, most of this can be automated with `go install golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/analysis/modernize/cmd/modernize@latest && modernize -fix ./...`

That's why you can give guidance to crawlers using sitemaps.

Which, just like robots.txt, worked decently well until the AI bot crawlers overwhelmed all else.

> The EU solution meaningfully changes the offending company's behavior.

Citation needed. I'd imagine they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead of investing huge amounts of money into fixing their broken processes. Comparing the list of EU-issued fines against the respective companies' profits shows that they can simply afford to make those mistakes instead of preventing them.

> they just add a tiny markup to their prices to pay the eventual fine instead

Ironically, this counter-argument applies perfectly to the "US solution".

On the contrary, EU's huge fines have a better chance of being effective.

Stock holders generally frown upon multi-billion euro fines and may want a change in management.

And it's probably securities fraud ;)

I can't speak for the other frameworks, but with Django this would have not been a problem at all. In Django, most "batteries included" features really just are 1st party plugins, i.e. you can choose to not use the builtin authentication stack and bring your own. All of this is officially supported and well documented, e.g. https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/5.1/topics/auth/customizin...

What exactly is a pain there? There's a docker compose file in the documentation that will tell you everything: https://docs.getoutline.com/s/hosting/doc/docker-7pfeLP5a8t

> It is simply cost and money in the face of much cheaper, less risky and heavily abundant renewable energy.

Adding to that, Germany still has no suitable location for a final depot for storing nuclear waste, and the unquantifiable cost to maintain such a depot for tens of thousand of years is often swept under the rug by nuclear supporters.